 At first I thought this was the dumbest idea ever. Then I realised it was for the kind of riding where you don't sit down, and it makes sense. Then I realised landing a jump hard, and having the saddle three inches further forward than usual might not be a great idea after all... >¦-o
|
 |
 You'll be so far away from the saddle at all times on a bike like that that I can't see that it matters 
|
|
 Isn't that mutton dressed up as URT. No thank you.
|
|
Scrotum and Zip spring to mind
|
|
URT with the saddle on the rear triangle no less. :-/
|
|
ANd loads of bollock catching stuff going on between your legs. 
|
|
 But then again the problem with URT's was that the suspension action altered if you stood up. On this sort of bike you are always standing so it really doesn't matter. That said it a not a URT as the bottom bracket is the pivot - it does not move with the suspension
|
|
We're all being very reactionary today, aren't we? Familiarise yourselves with the stuff he does, that bike makes a lot of sense.
|
|
We're all being very reactionary today, aren't we? Familiarise yourselves with the stuff he does, that bike makes a lot of sense. No sense at all Strength of 90% of bikes is in the double triangle concept. Front triangle takes a lot of strain. putting the suspension in the top tube is asking for trouble. IMHO
|
|
 Weird but a strange kinda logic for its intended use - more niche than a very niche thing.
|
| Edited: 28/08/08 14:08 |
 Yeah but but it's built by a slopestyle pro isn't it...wreck it bin it. Not for your average slopestlye rider who works 4 paper rounds to buy his dream bike then when he breaks it he's back riding a saracen amplitude for 4 more years.
|
|
Strength of 90% of bikes is in the double triangle concept. Front triangle takes a lot of strain. putting the suspension in the top tube is asking for trouble. IMHO It's still a triangle, it's just that one of the tubes is now compressible. You might just as well say that the strength of a fork is all in the legs and that therefore replacing them with springs is asking for trouble 
|
|
Reactionary? Nah, I always slag off Cannondale's desperate atempts to innovate without treading on someone else's US patent; it's the advantage of being a biased forum poster rather than an objective journalist.
|
|
Of course, it's far from the first bike to use a fork leg as rear suspension.
|
|
 it's the only bike to use just the one fork leg though?
|
|
Just another quirk like the Lefty. If the Lefty was such a good idea it would have been copied.
|
|
If the Lefty was such a good idea it would have been copied. I don't think it's that, I suspect cannondale have patented it to within an inch of it's life...which is a shame because competion breeds development.
|
|
it's the only bike to use just the one fork leg though? Didn't the Maverick shock start as a single fork leg?
|
|
The orginal Headshok has been copied - by Rockshox!
|
|
 Average slopestyle rider? IMO there is no such being apart from the big names that appear in films and the whole genre was cooked up to create more interest in the sport and get more attention. The same sort of riding has been going on, just buried in woodlands miles from anywhere not in town centres / ski resorts where thousands of people can watch..... As for the frame, most (I think) of the URT design issues compromise a bike that needs to be pedalled, this doesn't, all the suspension needs to do is take the edge off some daft big move that involves landing from 20' up in the air - something you've got to be rather confident to do on a HT. I do think it is an interesting idea, going in the same direction as the Atomlab DJ forks that are just elastomers, they don't need fancy damping or 'owt as all they have to do is take the edge off things.....
|
|
